Rossi vs. Darden developments [CASE CLOSED]

Quote from IH Fanboy

@sig,

"It is Defendants’ position that this Court ordered production of Andrea Rossi’s individual tax returns . . . this Court only required production of tax returns of Leonardo Corporation of Florida and Leonardo Corporation of New Hampshire.

It is a slap, albeit a gentle one.

It reads to me, as sigmoidal above points out, as a clarification. I'm wondering how you could word this clarification so that it was precise but less "slappy". I'll be happy for you to accept there is no evidence for a slap, or to do that.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

If TC is still reading the posts here, my guess is that the bolometer sensitivity correction he used can be removed from his Python script, since the camera does that itself (and thereby becomes duplicated when used in external calculations). When I did the calculations (ages ago) I assumed that the bolometer sensitivity correction was incorporated into the camera internal calculations and was done perfectly. I think that is the source of the temperature difference between our methods. (779 C vs 820 C for the 1410 C reported value.)

Maybe someone that uses Python can try that out with the code in the Clarke report and see if my interpretation is correct.

(Within 40 degrees or so of what the Optris software actually says is still pretty good.)

Note that a 46 C difference at 0.95 on the RH (IOW, the real T side) made nearly a 90 C difference on the LH set at 0.45 emissivity in the earlier screen shots.

As an interested observer: that looks very possible. The camera ought to exactly calculate temperature for uniform spectral emissivity grey bodies, given that the bolometer sensitivity is in a band that will lead to slightly different weighting at different temperatures. The TC calculations do this reweighting (as is needed) using both the sharply varying spectral emissivity of alumina <i> and</i> the bolometer sensitivity. What they do not do is back calculate that against the change that would happen anyway for uniform emissivity (dependent only on the bolometer characteristics).

That is a good catch P, and were all this stuff published for real it would be a definitely publishable tweak!

I don't have the time now to try it with Python from the published code, but I guess it should be done. I'm not sure that the correction is as large as you expect since the affect of the alumina response will be to make the actual bolometer additional correction less significant (I think) but that is only a small help.

Regards, THH

The [snip] pretense is so surreal here.

Just a reminder: please respect forum members' wishes for anonymity. Eric

Documents 174, 174.1 seem to be setting the stage for another Motion for sanctions from Leonardo et al.

Quote from Jack Cole

A slightly more sophisticated scammer realizes he can cover occasional discoveries that his tests are fake under the excuse you just offered.

O wow so you start supposing (by prejudice or by agenda) that Rossi is scammer and explain every fact using that prejudice.

So why you stay here and discuss ? You don't need any discussions ! You have already your own truth !

Quote from IH Fanboy

The [snip] pretense is so surreal here.

How so?

Edited by Eric

Quote from ele

O wow so you start supposing (by prejudice or by agenda) that Rossi is scammer and explain every fact using that prejudice.

So why you stay here and discuss ? You don't need any discussions ! You have already your own truth !

I started by supposing that maybe AR had something, supported the community of people trying to replicate the effect, attempted many replications of my own, spent a bunch of money, read every book written about AR, and many LENR papers. It is my reasoned (finished) conclusion that AR is a scammer based on a wide variety of evidence.

During the MFMP Lugano Thermal Verification video (part2), the guys run into the 1524.1°C software barrier while changing emissivity from 1.0 to 0.45 while the device is at ~990°C.

Unfortunately we hear only the conversation, and the 1524° does not get displayed on screen.

This happens at 1:53:01

https://youtu.be/uxTos11fcs8?t=6762

Please do not try to out forum members who wish to remain anonymous.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

If TC is still reading the posts here, my guess is that the bolometer sensitivity correction he used can be removed from his Python script,

[snip] almost for sure.

All his analysis is without any scientific ground and is in fact disinformation invented ad hoc for IH purposes. "Bolometer sensitivity" is something that varies pixel by pixel and also is function of the optics used. Is a parameter known just to Optris and included in calibration files that are written for any singular IR camera.

In fact the software reads the camera and optics SN and search for the appropriate files.

Among other errors done by purpose [snip] used a dirty trick in order to obtain the result that IH wanted.

He pretended to use the "spectral emissivity" to calculate the temperature(from the energy emitted and deteced by the bolometers) and the total emissivity in order recalculate the energy. Because the The first is almost 1 and the second is (depend on T) about 0.5 the trick served to him to affirm that no energy was produced .

(In fact if we do 780/1440 we obtain a value very near to 0.5)

That trick is so dirt that is quite evident that was invented just to obtain a preconceived result.

I'm so convinced that we are in front of an act of disinformation for two main reasons:

1) just studying the manuals the "double standard" trick appeared me evident,

2) after knowing that IH deliberately attempted to corrupt a possible witness, is was quite clear to me that the plot of IH is to diffuse FUD and disinformation in order to influence the trial. Quite a criminal attitude I presume.

One last reminder: please respect the anonymity of forum members. I will start giving 2-day bans if I get the sense a slip-up was intentional. Eric

ele ,

For your benefit:

Quote from Paradigmnoia

During the MFMP Lugano Thermal Verification video (part2), the guys run into the 1524.1°C software barrier while changing emissivity from 1.0 to 0.45 while the device is at ~990°C.

As far as I know MFMP is guided by the red-pill guy...... but coming to facts.... if MFMP have not used PURE alumina but just Durapot or any other cement then the emissivity could be very different from that of the Lugano reactor.

I remember that I have seen on the web a photo taken by them when trying to measure the emissivity of a sample that was contained in a oven.

Obviously was near 1 because the oven itself is a cavity quite similar to a Black Body ! Emissivity can't be measured in an oven !

Quote from Paradigmnoia

For your benefit:

We know all that paradigmoia. You are repeating that all the time in every possible place at every hour of day and night.

You remind me the "Four legs good, two legs bad" repeated by the sheep of Animal Farm.

The phrase on the Optris manual should be intended : "if an object does not emit in the camera spectral range than is invisible to the camera and can't be measured"

Also your three figures does not respond to the TC dirty trick.

Emissivity factor when calculating the energy back is cancelled !

Quote from ele

The phrase on the Optris manual should be intended : "if an object does not emit in the camera spectral range than is invisible to the camera and can't be measured"

Also your three figures does not respond to the TC dirty trick.

Emissivity factor when calculating the energy back is cancelled !

Sentence 1: Yes

Sentence 3: No

Quote from Paradigmnoia

Documents 174, 174.1 seem to be setting the stage for another Motion for sanctions from Leonardo et al.

These motions for sanctions by Rossi I think are interesting, because they really do provide us in the peanut gallery some significant information prior to trial. It's probably not the information Rossi would hope for us to deduce, however. Let me explain:

1) Court sanctions are serious. If a party is sanctioned by the court, it indicates serious errors by either the party being sanctioned, the lawyers representing the party, or both. In every event, it's a major black eye to the sanctioned party. For the lawyers, it's a major hit to their reputation. This is generally true even if the main cause of the sanction is for the behavior of the party rather than the legal team, because the legal team presumably should have instructed the party on how not to be sanctioned. In this specific case, Darden has a law degree from Yale, and cannot plead ignorance. So these are actually very serious charges being raised by Rossi.

2) Because sanctions are serious, they require 'serious' proof. Any Judge will not casually mete out sanctions to a party, for example, because they 'lean' towards one side, or they think there is a preponderance of evidence that they might be sanctionable. The serious nature of sanctions means a Judge is going to need to be convinced to a high degree that the guilty party deserves the sanctions. So Rossi's lawyers need to provide a strong case with all the damning evidence they have if they hope to succeed in getting sanctions imposed upon IH.

3) Rossi has requested twice for sealing his motions for sanctions, and both times the Judge has denied sealing the information. So we in the peanut gallery benefit from this in (at least) three ways:

a) We get to see evidence we would not likely otherwise see.

b) We know that the information we are seeing is Rossi's strongest evidence supporting the motion for sanctions. (In contrast, we don't know that we're getting the strongest evidence, or all the details from other exhibits, because the burden of proof and level of specificity is lower in these preliminary hearings having to do with discovery and responses to motions to dismiss.)

c) We get to see the Judges verdict prior to trial.

So far, in Rossi's latest motion for sanctions, we have:

1. An email from Darden to Uzi Sha providing the contact info of Rossi and company, with no other content. He has an unsworn 'affidavit' from Levi saying he felt coerced by Sha, but no evidence that Sha was in any way acting on behalf of Darden (and remember, Darden didn't provide any info to Sha regarding Levi in email exhibited). We know from the Magistrate's order in 173 that no emails from Zalli are available to Rossi to make his case (and we have no reason to believe that Zalli has any evidence anyway). But in any case it's to someone unrelated to the case (despite Rossi's bizarre and 'tragi-comic' claims that this affects Rossi's Nobel Prize-worthiness).
2. We have an informational email from Dewey Weaver to Bo Hoistad that Rossi characterizes as 'threatening'. But reading the email, I see nothing in it that is threatening at all. It's literally a 'heads-up' email (Weaver uses that exact phrase). The email could just as reasonably be considered (by Weaver at least) that DW was doing Hoistad a favor by providing helpful information. We have no evidence that Bo Hoistad felt that this was threatening. And again, in any case it's to someone unrelated to the case.

From my perspective, if this is the best information Rossi has when bringing the serious charge of witness tampering requiring sanctions, this says WAY more about Rossi than anyone else. (Calling this a "Hail Mary" impugns the level of desperateness of "Hail Mary"s.)

But in the event that my opinion is wrong, and the Judge actually awards sanctions, that too would be pretty interesting for us in the peanut gallery (actually, it would be way more interesting than a denial, given the bizarre implications).

So again, I find these motions for sanctions fairly informative. They give me a better picture of Rossi's level of competence, and insight into who is likely calling the legal shots.

And we should know the Judges ruling very shortly.

Quote from Paradigmnoia

ele ,

For your benefit

@PM: May be you once should explain how you integrate the spectrum to get e=.95? And second how this should correlate with an unknown material composition...

As I already told: The Optris Bolometer is feed by resonance micro-mirrors (each pixel!!), that average the whole measured spectrum, what finally leads to T³ dependent measurement behavior.

If you don't have access to the exact material and the exact application of the material, then any reasoning about the color of the underpants makes no sense...

Either AR has produced steam or not. We all will see soon.

Quote from ele

The phrase on the Optris manual should be intended : "if an object does not emit in the camera spectral range than is invisible to the camera and can't be measured"

And conversely, the camera can only measure energy radiated within its spectral sensitivity range.

Therefore spectral emissivity within the sensitive range of the Optris (7.5 to 13 μ) is the range that the emissivity of the camera function works with.

The rest of the IR spectra is invisible to the camera, and making adjustments to the detection of un-measurable things is of course meaningless.

Quote from Wyttenbach

As I already told: The Optris Bolometer is feed by resonance micro-mirrors (each pixel!!), that average the whole measured spectrum, what finally leads to T³ dependent measurement behavior.

If you don't have access to the exact material and the exact application of the material, then any reasoning about the color of the underpants makes no sense...

So as I understand it you suppose that the bolometer includes a complex MEMS device (one for each pixel) to modify the planck function expected measurement behaviour into something that is T^3? Have you anywhere seen something like that work? And, in this case, what advantage would that give you for the large extra cost?

If you have any details supporting this implausible assertion I'd be fascinated to read them.

@sig

You are very adept at spinning something obviously crappy into the best possible light, I'll give you that.